Waste Sector GHG Protocol - Version 5 - October 2013 - 1

- Protocol -
- for the quantification -

- of greenhouse -
- gas emissions -
- from waste management -
- activities -
Version 5.0
october 2013
Protocol for the quantification Version 5.0
of greenhouse gas emissions from october 2013
waste management activities
- Acknowledgments and Contact -
This Protocol was developed by the Entreprises pour l’Environnement

Working Group composed of the following companies:
Seche Environnement Suez Environnement Veolia Environnement
2
Version 5.0 Protocol for the quantification
october 2013 of greenhouse gas emissions from
This is the fifth version of the Protocol. We also thank the following associations EpE gives very special thanks
It takes into account modifications identified for their continued support of the Protocol: to Alexandra LALET (Suez Environnement
by the EpE Working Group as well as changes SITA) and Flora BERG (Veolia Propreté)
related to comments provided by the World • the International Solid Waste Association for their intensive work on updating
Resource Institute (WRI), following their (ISWA), this tool.
review. • the European Federation of Waste
Management and Environmental Service
The EpE Working Group would like to thank (FEAD),
the following associations and agencies for • the French Federation of Waste Management
reviewing and commenting on this latest Services (FNADE),
version: • the Environmental Services Association
(ESA) in the United Kingdom,
• The International Solid Waste • the Spanish Association of Hazardous
Association (ISWA) - Working Group Waste Managers (ASEGRE), 50 rue de la Chaussée d’Antin
on Waste Management and Climate Change • the Dutch Waste Management Association Paris 75009
• the French Federation of Waste Management (DWMA) and Tel: +(33).1.49.70.98.50
Services (FNADE), • the Confederation of European Waste Fax: +(33).1.49.70.02.50
• the Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants (CEWEP). E-mail: contact@epe-asso.org
to Energy Plants (CEWEP), www.epe-asso.org
• the Dutch Waste Management Association
(DWMA), and EpE is the French partner of the World
• the French Interprofessional Technical Business Council for Sustainable
Centre for Studies on Air Pollution (CITEPA). Development (WBCSD). The WBCSD is a CEO-led,
global association of some 200 companies
dealing exclusively with business and
sustainable development.
3
- Table of contents -
Acknowledgments and Contact -> 02

Foreword -> 06
1 4
Protocol’s Objectives and Principles Emissions calculations
pages 09 to 12 pages 30 to 40
1.1. Objectives -> 10 4.1. Reporting Period and data-> 30
1.2. Principles -> 11 4.2. Methodologies used -> 31
1.3. Definitions -> 12 4.3. Calculation Tool -> 32
4.4. Global Warming Potentials -> 33
2
4.5. Avoided emissions Calculation -> 34
Waste Management Sector 4.6. Specific case of landfill diffuse
pages 13 to 18 emissions modelling -> 36
2.1. Waste Management 4.7. Other specific cases -> 37
Activities -> 14 4.8 Base Year and Historic
2.2. Specificities of Waste Sector’s Emissions Recalculations -> 40
GhG Emissions -> 16
3
Inventory Boundaries
pages 19 to 28
3.1. Organizational boundaries -> 20
3.2. Operational boundaries -> 22
3.4. Exclusions -> 26
3.5. Adjustments -> 28
4
5 7
Managing Uncertainty Verification
pages 41 to 46 pages 51 to 52
5.1. Uncertainty in GHG emissions
inventories -> 42
5.2. Uncertainty calculation -> 44
5.3. Reducing uncertainty -> 46
6
Guidelines for GHG Reporting Annex 1: Comparative analysis of the greenhouse gases models
Presentation for landfills -> 55
pages 47 to 50
6.1. Content of the GHG inventory Annex 2: Carbon Sequestration in Landfills and Soils after compost
report -> 48 spreading -> 67
6.2. Use of ratio indicators -> 50
Annex 3: Composting – N2O and CH4 Emissions Factors -> 76
5
- Foreword -
Six years have passed since the Waste Sector Protocol was published
for the first time in 2006. Today, global warming and climate change
remain amongst the most significant environmental issues facing
our planet. In 2006, the Kyoto Protocol had just been ratified and
the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) had been recently
launched, giving strong signals of the world’s willingness to create
the appropriate structures that would contribute to reducing
the global greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.
Unfortunately, the current global overview is much less optimistic.

The last Conferences of the Parties (COP) and Earth Summit
conferences have not delivered clear and ambitious targets and
incentives to scale-up the implementation of low-carbon solutions
to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees centigrade.
GHG emissions on a global level are far from decreasing or even
stabilising. Total GHG emissions for 2010 and then for 2011 have been
respectively identified as the highest ever.
Despite the uncertainty of the on-going international climate

negotiations, many governments have taken steps to reduce
GHG emissions through policy measures that include the introduction
of emission trading schemes, voluntary programmes,
carbon or energy taxes, and regulations on GHG
monitoring and reporting.
There are increasing demands or expectations
for businesses and communities to report their greenhouse
gas emissions on a regular basis.
6
Sectorial protocols such as this Waste Sector Protocol are therefore those sector guidance documents, product rules, and calculation
very useful in such cases and contribute to the elaboration tools that have been developed in conformance with the GHG Protocol
of complete GHG emissions accounting and reporting processes. Corporate Standard. With such label, users should feel confident that
the document or tool they are using is in conformance with the GHG
The Protocol itself has evolved with time, going through 4 version Protocol Standards.
updates. The different versions correspond to evolutions initiated
by the original Working Group but also to the suggestions and To obtain the label, the Protocol has been revised and two significant
feedback provided by several waste associations that have reviewed topics have been included.
and commented on the Protocol. As a result, several worldwide • First, the emissions of biogenic CO� were added to the calculation
associations have validated and used the Protocol for their own tool. Even though these emissions are not included within the scope
greenhouse gas inventories. of direct and indirect emissions, they have to be calculated
Through these evolutions, the Protocol has been supported by the and reported separately in the tool.
International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), the European Federation • The second significant evolution is the completeness of emissions
of Waste Management and Environmental Service (FEAD), the French sources, requiring that all sources of emissions of all 6 of the
Federation of Waste Management Services (FNADE), the Environmental identified Kyoto GHG’s are considered. The threshold of ‘significance’
Services Association (ESA) in the UK, the Confederation of European that was used to justify the exclusion of some sources is no longer
Waste to Energy Plants (CEWEP), the Dutch Waste Management applicable. The user is therefore in charge of including or not
Association (DWMA), and the Spanish Association of Hazardous Waste sources that he/she considers as not significant and should provide
Managers (ASEGRE). It is the intent of the EpE Working Group the adequate evidences / justifications.
to continue to promote its use internationally.
-> The reference tool for the waste sector
-> “Built on the GHG Protocol” label With such label, the Waste Sector Protocol reinforces its desire to be
In the perspective of continuous improvement of this document, the reference tool for the waste sector by ensuring its users of a total
and in order to meet the general expectations of users, and transparent coherence and conformity with the GHG Protocol
the Working Group has decided to initiate a new revision Corporate Standard’s requirements.
of the Protocol. The Protocol is exclusively dedicated to annual GHG reporting.
Unlike the previous versions, it is not only based on a peer It aims at being a supportive tool for waste managers
review but on a review conducted by the World Resources or practitioners to prepare their GHG emissions inventory.
Institute (WRI). The objective is to have version 5 labelled Based on such inventory, action plans and emission reduction
“built on the GHG Protocol”. This new label was initiated jointly objectives can be established. The present document along with
by the WRI and the World Business Council on Sustainable the Excel emissions calculation worksheet constitutes the Waste
Development (WBCSD). It is a way for the GHG Protocol to recognize Sector specific Protocol.
7
8
1
Protocol’s Objectives and Principles

1.1 ......... Objectives -> page 10
1.2 ......... Principles -> page 11
1.3 ......... Definitions -> page 12
9
- 1.1. Objectives -
This document is intended to provide a credible approach The reported data should be consistent with
to quantify, report and verify greenhouse gases (GHG) the guidance outlined in this document.
Any deviation from these guidelines should
direct & indirect emissions of waste management actors. be described fully in the report supporting
The purpose of this Waste Sector Protocol is to establish the GHG emissions inventory.
best practice across the waste sector for the implementation
This Protocol was built on the Greenhouse
of a coherent and homogeneous annual GHG Gas Protocol – A Corporate Accounting
emissions reporting. and Reporting Standard – Revised edition,
elaborated by the WBCSD and the WRI.
A full review of the Protocol was undertaken
by the WRI to ensure its compatibility with
the requirements of the GHG Protocol.
The Protocol is also compatible with
the ISO standards related to GHG emissions
inventory.
This Protocol is a dynamic document:

it may be modified according to new
knowledge and/ or improved calculation
and measurement techniques.
10
- 1.2. Principles -
In line with the GHG Protocol Corporate

Standard, this Protocol is based on
the principles of relevance, completeness,
consistency, transparency and accuracy.
GHG reports should be based on the best
available data at the time of publication.
For more information on these principles,
please refer to Chapter 1 of the Corporate
Accounting and Reporting Standard of
the GHG Protocol.
11
- 1.3. Definitions -
-> Entity -> Direct Emissions -> Indirect Emissions -> Avoided emissions
An entity is a group, a company, Direct GHG emissions occur from Indirect GHG emissions are Certain waste treatment activities
a subsidiary, a local authority process or equipments owned emissions that are consequences generate energy (electricity &
or a site performing a GHG or controlled by the entity. of the activities of the entity heat) as a by-product and/
emissions inventory. Example: emissions from but that physically occur or contribute to the re-use
Any entity which performs its combustion installations, at sites or during operations of materials or fuels.
inventory according to this landfills (fugitive emissions), owned or controlled by another Energy and material recovery
Protocol should apply the steps company-owned vehicles, etc. organization than the reporting can contribute to avoid GHG
and meet the requirements In accordance with the GHG entity. In accordance with emissions compared to
described hereinafter. Protocol, direct emissions the GHG Protocol, indirect a baseline scenario.
are also known as ‘Scope 1’ emissions can be distinguished Avoided emissions are not
emissions. into two categories known as included in or deducted from
Direct emissions of biogenic scope 2 and scope 3 emissions. direct and indirect emissions
carbon, resulting from biomass Indirect emissions resulting and should be reported
burning or decomposition, from imports of electricity, heat separately.
shall not be included in or steam not self-produced have For further details please see
direct emissions but reported to be accounted for as scope 2 section 4.5.
separately (see section 4.7). emissions.
It must be underlined that Example: electricity purchased
the term “direct GHG emissions” from the grid.
applies to the source type All other indirect emissions
of emissions. correspond to scope 3 emissions.
Example: waste transported
in vehicles not owned (or not
controlled) by the entity.
It must be underlined that the
term “indirect GHG emissions”
applies to the source type
of emissions, i.e. it does not
mean emissions of indirect
greenhouse gases but emissions
from indirect source types.
12
2
Waste Management Sector

2.1 ......... Waste Management Activities -> page 14
2.2 ......... Specificities of Waste Sector’s GHG Emissions -> page 16
13
- 2.1. Waste Management Activities -
-> Collection and transportation

Collection is the first step of the waste
management. It aims at gathering waste
before transfert, sorting, treatment
or recovery for instance.
The various steps of the waste management Collection can be done door-to-door,
are briefly presented below. using dedicated vehicles, or after
preliminary voluntary drop-off in specific
containers (packaging, paper, and glass).
-> Transfer
Waste that is collected from communities,
individuals or companies can be directly
transported to a treatment or material
recovery facility or be firstly consolidated
in a transfer center in order to optimise
its transport to a treatment or material
recovery facility.
-> Mechanical pre-treatment

Waste can undergo several methods
of mechanical pre-treatment to facilitate
its recovery or recycling.
For example, West Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE) can be dismantled.
-> Sorting, recycling and material recovery

Waste can be sorted to separate the different
materials fractions. Recyclable materials
14
are then recycled by introducing them of methane. Produced biogas is captured Incinerators are equipped with energy
in the production cycle as a partial or total and combusted in flares or recovered recovery systems, enabling electricity
substitution (paper, glass, steel, etc.). to produce thermal and / or electric energy. and / or heat generation.
Solid Recovered Fuels (SRF) can be produced Furthermore, solid residues from
and then used in substitution of conventional -> Landfilling combustion (bottom ash) are recovered
fossil fuels. Landfilling refers to the more modern sites and scrap metal can be recycled.
where waste is placed in lined disposal areas Other thermal treatment exist such as
-> Physico-chemical treatment which are environmentally isolated, pyrolysis or gasification.
It consists of mechanical, physical and where waste is naturally degraded.
or chemical treatment of hazardous waste Within best practices, emissions produced -> Mechanical biological treatment (MBT)
in dedicated installations. by decaying waste (gas and leachate) are MBT is an intermediate treatment step
Alternative fuels can be produced. recovered through drainage systems between waste collection and the subsequent
and treated. The amount and quality of these treatment steps (landfill, thermal treatment,
-> Biological treatment emissions are variable in time and depend agronomic reuse, recycling or any other
(composting, anaerobic digestion) on the composition of the stored waste. existing form of treatment).
These processes can be applied Organic waste decomposition produces It is mainly used to treat municipal solid
to agro-food industry waste, green waste, landfill gas (comprised of methane waste with an adequate biodegradable
biowaste as well as sewage sludge. and carbon dioxide in nearly the same content to feed the biological step.
The composting process consists in organic amounts). The captured landfill gas is either In some cases, commercial and industrial
matter aerobic degradation and stabilisation. combusted in flares or recovered to produce waste or biowaste can also feed the plant.
It enables the production of organic thermal and/or electric energy. The configuration of the MBT process
amendment (compost) that can be used can vary, including more or less steps.
in agriculture, as a source of organic -> Thermal Treatment The process can start with the mechanical
matter to improve certain low quality soils, Incineration is a treatment process step and then a biological step or the other
e.g. in the restoration of brown field sites, applicable to hazardous and non-hazardous way round, depending on the target of the
or for landfill cap restoration. Anaerobic waste (municipal solid waste, industrial waste plant: compost production, SRF production,
digestion consists of controlled anaerobic and sometimes sewage sludge). energy production from biogas and/or
fermentation of organic waste in a digester, Waste is degraded through thermal stabilised product.
producing biogas which is mainly composed treatment in incinerators.
15
- 2.2. Specificities of Waste Sector’s

GHG Emissions -
The primary objective of the waste sector is to collect,

treat and recover, as efficiently as possible, residues -> An uncommon position
The main specificity of companies in this
from human activities to limit their impacts sector lies in their original position:
on the environment. they generate environmental impacts that
Material and energy recovery have become they are not the cause of, since they are not
responsible for the very creation of the waste
crucial aspects for the sector so as to enable treated. In this context, the determination
considering waste as a resource. of the scope of responsibility for the impacts
caused is crucial. GHG emissions generated
whether during the transportation phase
(collection, transport) or treatment phase
consist in direct emissions (scope 1)
for the waste sector companies however
they constitute indirect emissions for waste
producers (scope 3).
16
-> Emissions monitoring and uncertainties -> Avoided emissions

In general, the waste sector is under The waste sector is not only responsible for The difference between emissions of GHG
strict monitoring regulations in terms GHG emissions but also contributes to avoid to produce equivalent (in quantity and
of environmental impacts. As a result, GHG emissions. The waste sector aims quality) amounts of materials from raw virgin
treatment facility emissions and discharges at ensuring a maximum quantity of treated materials and from recycled ones enables
are reported as accurately as possible waste is recovered - either through material the calculation of avoided emissions.
by the operators. However, GHG emissions recovery (reuse, recycling, composting…), or The consumption of these electricity
monitoring can present important as energy (electricity and/or heat produced and recycled materials results in
uncertainties, because of several factors: out of biogas, incinerator, etc.). Material a decrease of consumers’ scope 2 and scope
• Firstly, an important number of waste and energy recovery, when they occur, may 3 emissions. However, these benefits cannot
treatment activities incorporate result in an environmental benefit accounted be translated in waste treatment players’
complex processes (for instance for as avoided emissions. carbon footprint directly, but are evaluated
biological) for which it is difficult Energy can be generated as a co-product by and reported separately as avoided
to reach the same accuracy as in waste treatment facilities. If this electricity is emissions. Avoided emissions are reported
the other industrial activities’ sold to the grid, it is considered for information purposes only.
emissions to quantify GHG emissions, to contribute to avoid the emission of GHG As a result, this Protocol provides
• Finally, the composition of treated that would have occurred if an equivalent a methodology to evaluate avoided emissions
wastes is often very heterogeneous. amount of electricity had to be produced by and to report them in a separate memo item.
In cases where a statistical approach / power plants connected to the grid. It should be noted that avoided emission
default values (national or IPCC) Materials sorted and recycled can be should not be deducted from direct
are used, it introduces important reprocessed and sold on the market as and indirect emissions.
but unavoidable bias. secondary materials.
17
-> Biogenic CO2 emissions

GHG quantification and reporting is part Yet, the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard
of a process intending to evaluate requires the quantification and reporting
the contribution of human activities
to climate change. Nevertheless, climate of these biogenic emissions in a separate
change is a natural phenomenon to which memo item.
the short cycle of carbon has always This Protocol follows the Corporate Standard’s
contributed. As such, the Intergovernmental guidelines and therefore provides
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends a methodology for accounting and reporting
for the Waste Sector that “Carbon dioxide of biogenic carbon dioxide emissions emitted
from the combustion or decay of short-lived by waste sector activities. These emissions
biogenic material removed from where it was are given for information purposes only.
grown is reported as zero”1. See section 4.7.
These emissions are reported in the AFOLU
sector (Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use) to avoid double counting.
18 1. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Vol. 1, General Guidance and Reporting, p.6
3
Inventory Boundaries
3.1 ......... Organizational boundaries -> page 20
3.2 ......... Operational boundaries -> page 22
3.3 ......... Exclusions -> page 26
3.4 ......... Adjustments -> page 28
19
- 3.1. Organizational boundaries -
Definition: 2 In setting organizational boundaries,

an entity selects an approach for consolidating GHG emissions
and then consistently applies the selected approach to define
those businesses and operations that constitute the entity
for the purpose of accounting and reporting GHG emissions.
-> “Equity share” and “control” approaches

The GhG Protocol’s Corporate Accounting waste. It can operate its own sites or do • It holds a majority of the voting rights
and Reporting Standard defines three ap- it on behalf of municipalities and companies. in the reporting entity,
proaches for setting organizational bounda- In both cases, it is its responsibility to ensure • It holds the operating permit delivered
ries: the equity share, the financial control that waste management is performed by the administration,
3
and the operational control approaches. the most suitable way, to identify actions • It has been delegated the operations
• Under the “equity share approach”, for improvement and to implement them, of the considered installation,
a company accounts for GHG emissions or at least, to inform and encourage • It has the power to impose its Health,
from operations according to its share their implementation. Safety and Environmental (HSE) procedures
of equity in the operation. As explained above, the “operational at the considered site(s),
• Under the “control” approach, control” is a boundary approach that takes • It has been delegated the authority
a company accounts for 100 percent into account GHG emissions from source to make economic decisions concerning
of the GHG emissions from operation types under operational control. the technical operation of the considered
over which it has control, either In this Protocol, it is considered installation,
“financial” or “operational”. that an entity could exercise dominant • by virtue of the terms and conditions
The core business of the waste management influence over one source type if one contained in the contract governing
sector is to operate sites, whether it is of the following conditions is fulfilled: the operation of the source type.
to collect, transfer, sort, treat and/or recover
20 2. Source: Chapter 3 of the GhG Protocol’s Corporate Standard

3. Please refer to the Chapter 3 of the GhG Protocol’s Corporate Standard
for more information on these approaches.
The “operational control” approach thus appears

as the most suitable for the GHG reporting of waste
management operators.
This is the approach adopted in this Protocol,
slightly enlarged in order to include the cases
of delegation of services.
-> Specific cases: delegation, sub-contracting

and financial control tains operational control over the activities this case, in this Protocol, it is considered,
It has to be highlighted that an entity that it has assigned them, i.e. if it has the au- that this entity has anyway an operational
has operational control does not necessarily thority to make decisions over operational control, even if weak and indirect: since the
have the power to take all decisions concer- procedures generating these emissions. If entity intends to gain economic benefits
ning source types. In case of significant the entity does not keep operational control from these activities, it has to endorse also
investments for example, approval from all of over the delegated activities, corresponding their emissions and report them. The entity
the partners that have a financial share will GHG emissions should be integrated into the has the responsibility to refer to contractual
be required. In case of delegation of ser- indirect emissions (scope 3). In all cases, agreements to establish which partner has
vices, investments will depend on the deci- the entity will have to coordinate with its the authority to introduce and implement
sion of the municipality or company which sub-contractor to make sure that the data operational procedures and to remind
delegates. reported as direct emissions for one and as its role.
indirect emissions for the other in their res-
The operational control approach also ap- pective inventories are consistent. Consistency of GHG emissions consolidation
plies in the case of sub-contractors of the will be reached only if all organizational le-
entity. Therefore, GHG emissions from the For some source types, an entity could have vels follow the same approach. The « opera-
sub-contractors will be included in the en- financial control shared with other entities, tional control » approach must therefore be
tity’s direct emissions reporting if it main- but not have direct operational control. In implemented at all organizational levels.
21
- 3.2. Operational boundaries -
-> Gases covered and units -> Scopes covered

Definition 4.: In setting The reporting unit used in the Protocol is In line with the GHG Protocol Corporate
metric tonnes of GHG. The consolidation unit Standard, this Protocol enables
operational boundaries, is metric tonnes (CO2). Results in GHG other the quantification and reporting of scope 1
an entity identifies emissions than CO2 are converted to CO2e data using and scope 2 emissions.
associated with its operation, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) values
provided by the IPCC (See section 4.4). Guidance is also provided to estimate
categorizes them as direct avoided emissions as well as for biogenic
(scope 1) and indirect emissions The seven GHG to be reported are: and sequestered carbon emissions.
(scopes 2 & 3), and chooses - carbon dioxide (CO2),
- methane (CH4), As for now, it is not mandatory to report
the scope of accounting - nitrous oxide (N2O), scope 3 emissions. In order to obtain a GHG
and reporting for indirect - sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), emissions inventory as complete as possible,
emissions. - hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), entities may also wish to report these other
- perfluorocarbons (PFCs) indirect GHG emissions. If so, they should
- nitrogen triflouride (NF3) refer to the new standard for developing and
reporting inventories of scope 3 sources
Nevertheless, waste management activities developed by the GHG Protocol (see http://
are mostly accountable for emissions of www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-
methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. standard).
22 4. Source: Chapter 4 of the GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard

Definition: A source type is a process or equipment

which releases direct and indirect GHG emissions
into the atmosphere. Source types are characterized
by an identical calculation methodology.
-> Identifying the Source Type List
The user must list, every year, the source In the Excel Tool, a dedicated sheet entitled All these different source types include both
types it is taking into account to calculate its “Source Type List” helps the user to identify point source emissions (stacks, flares, etc.)
annual inventory emissions. the emission sources that should be included and diffuse emissions sources (landfills).
The entity should keep a written record in its reporting perimeter.
of the decisions taken during the It is based on the following table which
identification of the source type list. summarizes the main direct & indirect source
To determine its source type list, the entity types met in waste management activities. For
must identify all sources over which it information purposes, avoided emissions and
has operational control. This list must be biogenic carbon dioxide sources have been
as exhaustive, complete and accurate as identified and listed separately.
possible.
23
Table 1 -> Synthesis of main direct & indirect source types met in waste management activities
Activity Direct Emissions Indirect Avoided Emissions Sources Biogenic CO2

Sources Emissions Sources Emissions Sources
Collection -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from N.A. -> CO2 from consumption
& Transportation consumption electric vehicles of biomass energy
-> HFC from A/C -> CO2 from (biofuels, bioliquids,
leakages outsourced transport solid biomass,
biogases)
Transfer -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from purchased N.A. -> CO2 from consumption
consumption electricity of biomass energy
consumption (biofuels, bioliquids,
solid biomass, biogases)
Mechanical -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from purchased N.A. -> CO2 from consumption
Pre-treatment consumption electricity of biomass energy
(dismantling) consumption (biofuels, bioliquids,
solid biomass, biogases)
Sorting, Recycling -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from purchased -> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding -> CO2 from consumption
& Recovering consumption electricity to the difference between virgin raw material of biomass energy (biofuels,
-> HFC emissions from consumption production emissions and material recovery bioliquids, solid biomass,
WEEE dismantling emissions biogases)
-> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding
to the difference between burning fossil fuel
and solid recovered fuels (SRF)
Physico-chemical -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from purchased -> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding -> CO2 from consumption
waste treatment consumption electricity to the difference between burning fossil fuel of biomass energy
consumption and alternative fuels (biofuels, bioliquids, solid
biomass, biogases)
Biological Treatment -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from purchased -> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding -> CO2 from consumption
(composting) consumption electricity to the difference between use of chemical of biomass energy (biofuels,
-> Process emissions consumption fertilizer and compost spreading bioliquids, solid biomass,
(CH4 and N2O) biogases)
-> CO2 process emissions
24
Table 1 (continued)
Activity Direct Emissions Indirect Avoided Emissions Sources Biogenic CO2

Sources Emissions Sources Emissions Sources
Biological Treatment -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from purchased -> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding -> CO2 from consumption
(Anaerobic Digestion) consumption electricity to the difference between biogas recovery of biomass energy
-> Process emissions consumption emissions (as power, heat and/or fuel) (biofuels, bioliquids, solid
(CH4 and N2O) and substituted energy production emissions biomass, biogases)
-> CO2 process emissions
-> CO2 from biogas combustion
Landfill -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from purchased -> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding -> CO2 from consumption
consumption electricity to the difference between landfill gas recovery of biomass energy
-> Diffuse CH4 emissions consumption emissions (as power, heat and/or fuel) (biofuels, bioliquids,
-> CH4 from incomplete and substituted energy production emissions solid biomass, biogases)
landfill gas -> Diffuse CO2 & oxidised CH4
combustion emissions
-> CO2 from landfill gas
combustion process
Thermal -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from purchased -> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding -> CO2 from consumption
treatment consumption electricity to the difference between energy from thermal of biomass energy
-> N2O process consumption treatment processes recovery (as power and/or (biofuels, bioliquids,
emissions heat) emissions and substituted energy solid biomass, biogases)
-> CO2 process production emissions. -> CO2 process emissions
emissions (only the -> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding (the biogenic carbone
fossil carbon share to the difference between virgin raw material share of the waste)
of the waste) production emissions and material recovery emis-
sions (e.g. slag, scrap, metals and bottom ashes)
Mechanical Biological -> CO2 from fuel -> CO2 from purchased -> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding -> CO2 from consumption
Treatment (MBT) consumption electricity to the difference between biogas recovery of biomass energy
-> Process emissions consumption emissions (as power, heat and/or fuel) (biofuels, bioliquids,
(CH4, N2O) and substituted energy production emissions solid biomass, biogases)
-> Potential avoided GHG emissions corresponding -> CO2 process emissions
to the difference between virgin raw
material production emissions and material
recovery emissions (compost production,
alternative fuels, material recovery...)
25
- 3.3. Exclusions -
Under the definition of the completeness principle

given by the GHG Protocol, every source type
that is in the chosen perimeter must be included
in the inventory.
It is considered better to include all sources even
though with high uncertainty factors if they can
be estimated.
Nevertheless, based on experience of this Protocol to assess whether or not some

waste management practices, it is clear sources could be excluded. The emissions
that some sources of emissions may not be for these sources have been compared to
significant compared to overall emissions other total emissions of the same treatment
and could therefore be excluded without process or activity.
prejudice to the report. The entity can also Diffuse emissions of HFC gases from air
encounter obstacles in the quantification conditioning (A/C) mobile & fix devices
of some sources types because of a lack of have been quantified using conservative
knowledge. assumptions. Even though these gases GWP
is very high, these sources represented only
Quantifications have been undertaken by minor contribution to the sites / activities
members of the Working Group in charge of overall emissions.
26
Veolia Environment and SITA Experiences Therefore, these sources are not considered for the completeness of its GHG report.
Estimations were made thanks to to be significant for waste treatment In case a source of emission is not
the “screening method” proposed activities and it may seem legitimate proposed in this Protocol, the user can still
by the HFC/ PFC Protocol5 and using to consider as complete a GHG report that calculate and add the GHG emissions by
the most conservative assumptions would not include one or all of these sources. using the space left available in the tool
proposed. Yet, the insignificance of these emissions at the bottom of each tab.
Veolia Environment estimated can vary from one activity / site to another
that HFC diffuse emissions from mobile A/C one. Users are therefore asked to carefully In the case where access to information data
devices did not represent more than 0.80% check whether the devices (age, size, is obstructed for any reason, it is highly
of a truck’s emissions due to fuel refrigerant gas) used on the perimeter recommended to refer to the GHG Protocol
consumption during a year. of their report is comparable or not. Corporate Standard6 to set up processes
SITA calculated leakages for buildings, and cross checks that will allow collection
using conservative average annual gas The Excel tool of this Protocol compiles all of detailed information relevant for future
recharge quantities. HFC diffuse emissions GHG emission sources identified up to date GHG emissions quantification reports.
represent 0.2% (collection); to enable the user to inventory, Any excluded source should be properly
0.9% (sorting facility); 1.5% (landfill) of these as exhaustively as possible, the source types explained and justified.
facilities’ total direct emissions. it is concerned by. A minimum threshold cannot be defined
However, the user is responsible to exclude some sources.
5. Calculating HFC and PFC Emissions from the Manufacturing, Installation, Operation and Disposal of Refrigeration
& Air-conditioning Equipment (Version 1.0), January 2005, http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/refrigeration 27
6. GHG Protocol, Chapter 7, Managing Inventory Quality
- 3.4. Adjustments -
-> Adjustments to the Source Type List -> Adjustments for loss of operational control -> Adjustments for taking over operational
Changes may relate to the entity’s group An entity can divest operational control control
structure or to its operations e.g. through over source types within its source type list An entity can acquire operational control
the acquisition or divestiture of subsidiaries through: over source types outside of its source type
or assets. It follows that the source types • a de-merger or divestiture, list through:
in the source type list may not be fixed over • outsourcing one or several activities, • a merger,
time. • a re-organization of operational • an acquisition,
Each time an entity changes its structure control (change of contractor …), • internalization of an activity,
or operations, adjustments must be made • termination of an activity (source type). • a re-organization of operational
to the source type list and corresponding Should an entity divest operational control control (contractor’s change …),
annual emissions calculations. over source types within its source type • opening a new source type.
Any adjustment to the source type list must list, that entity will be required to adjust its Should an entity acquire operational control
be completed by the end of the same year source type list and annual GHG emissions. over source types outside of its source type
in which the structural or operational change In case of closure of a source type, GHG list, that entity will be required to make an
occurred. annual emissions will be taken into account adjustment to its source type list and to its
until the final closing. The method to take annual GHG emissions. In case of start up of
into account structural changes must a new activity, GHG emissions will be taken
be explained. into account from the start date. The method
to take structural changes into account must
be explained.
28
4
Emissions calculations
4.1 ......... Reporting Period and data -> page 30 4.6 ......... Specific case of landfill diffuse emissions modelling -> page 36
4.2 ......... Methodologies used -> page 31 4.7 ......... Other specific cases -> page 37
4.3 ......... Calculation Tool -> page 32 4.8 ......... Base Year and Historic Emissions Recalculations -> page 40
4.4 ......... Global Warming Potentials -> page 33
4.5 ......... Avoided emissions Calculation -> page 34
29
- 4.1. Reporting Period and data -
The purpose of this section is -> Reporting Period -> Activity data
to outline a common approach This Protocol is designed for preparing a To calculate GHG emissions, the user has
GHG inventory on the basis of activity data to identify and collect activity data which
and methodology cumulated over a given period of time, are representative data of an activity taking
for quantifying GHG emissions, typically one year. place during a given period of time (typically
using the Excel calculation tool the reporting period). Data are linked
to the activity such as collected, treated,
associated to this Protocol. sorted or recycled waste tonnage; but also
quantities / volumes of fuel combusted
or of electricity purchased. These activity
data are determined by the emission source
type and can be influenced according
to the emission factors’ unit available
(m3 rather than tonnes for instance).
The entity is free to select activity data
as long as its choices are justified.
The Excel calculation tool indicates

the activity data that the user should collect
for each source type.
30
- 4.2. Methodologies used -
-> Calculation and/or measurements When measurements are involved, there can The Excel calculation tool gives
Different levels of accuracy can be achieved be accuracy differences between alternative the possibility to use either a measurement
depending on the type of methodology used measurement techniques. or a calculation approach to quantify
to assess GHG emissions: In case of continuous measurement emissions from each kind of source type.
• either calculation (use of activity data for instance, there might be several As previously explained, when calculations
and standard emission factors), sampling protocols applicable to perform are involved, there can be several emission
• or measurements (periodic a representative sampling for analysis. factors for the same source type.
or continuous), Likewise, when calculations are involved, The tool proposes default emissions factors,
• or a combination of both. for a same source type, several emission sometimes several for the same source type,
factors from different bibliographic sources with information on their perimeter
can be used. so the user can select the most adequate
factor for its defined case.
For example, regulatory measurements
This Protocol does not of CO2 emissions of stacks can be used by -> Reference Documents
the site manager in case of GHG emissions This Protocol is built on the GHG Protocol, i.e.
recommend one methodology due to hazardous waste incineration, it is compliant with all requirements
more than the other because it is as long as it can be justified that this method of the Corporate Standard.
extremely dependant on is more accurate than a calculation method It also refers to several external tools
using activity data and an emission factor. and models, such as: the Transport Protocol
the source type. In this case, the proper functioning of (EpE/ ADEME), GHG emissions generation
It is thus of the responsibility the emissions analyser should be verified, from landfill sites models (ADEME, LandGEM,
of the user to identify the most a preventive maintenance program should GasSIM, IPCC Tier II), the HFC Tool of the GHG
be implemented to avoid any deviation Protocol… Detailed references are given
accurate methodology for each of in the operation of the measuring device for the sources of default values, emission
the source types of its inventory. and maintenance record should be archived. factors and calculation methodologies within
The chosen method will depend Moreover, the user must avoid double the Excel calculation tool (step by step).
counting. Stack measurements apply to all
on the significance of the source of the incinerated carbon (waste as well
type and the uncertainties as additional fuels).
associated with the available It is therefore not necessary to do
a separated and dedicated calculation
methods of assessment. for the emissions due to additional fuels.
31
- 4.3. Calculation Tool -
-> This tool is made of several • Landfills: • Recycling Factors:

spreadsheets: sheet presenting the recommendations Recommended factors for avoided
• Source Type List: and requirements concerning emissions emissions potentially associated
establishment of list of the source types calculation from landfills. with material recovery
included in the reporting perimeter Four theoretical methane production
• Transport: and emission models are presented
calculation of emissions due to waste (methane production calculation equation, -> The user has different types of data entry
collection and transport. major parameters…) fields:
This table is based on the emissions • Thermal treatment: • Fields where the user has to enter site
calculation sheet for GHG emissions calculation of emissions due to waste specific values (for instance, activity data,
from transport published by EpE and thermal treatment (all types) such as incinerated waste tonnage)
focuses on relevant transport activities • Avoided: • Fields where default values are presented
in waste management. calculation of potential avoided emissions (emission factors). Default values refer
• Sorting - Transfer - Recycling: through waste recovery following to nationally or internationally accepted
calculation of emissions due to transfer the principles presented in the present values, when they are available. Sources are
and sorting facilities Protocol presented within the table. The user can
• Anaerobic digestion: • Source Type List with Results: adapt these default values to give the most
calculation of emissions due to anaerobic sheet detailing the direct/indirect, accurate vision of its site situation. However,
digestion of waste biogenic and avoided emissions results in this case, selected values will have to be
• Composting: associated with the activities covered documented and justified.
calculation of emissions due to composting by the inventory
process • Synthesis: By filling in the calculation table, the
• SRF: sheet summarizing the results user will see notes that indicate how to
calculation of emissions due to Solid of the inventory fill in the tool, precautions to take and
Recovered Fuels preparation • Factors: some recommendations mentioned in this
• MBT: sheet summarising the recommended Protocol.
calculation of emissions due emission factors to be used
to Mechanical-Biological treatments for the reporting
32
- 4.4. Global Warming Potentials -
Table 2 -> Global Warming Potentials used in this Protocol
The Global Warming Potentials (GWP) used Gas GWP

in the Excel calculation tool are those
proposed in the 4th IPCC report7.
CO2 1
These GWPs are not those which have been
integrated in the Kyoto Protocol framework
and its associated project mechanisms. CH4 25
It was chosen to move to the most recent

GWP values available since the first N2O 298
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol
ends at the end of 2012 and that 2nd IPCC
assessment values are only imposed until SF6 22 800
that time.
If users wish to use the GWP values imposed
in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, HFC from 124 to 14 800 depending on the substance
they should change the values
in the “Factors” tab of the Excel tool,
PCF from 7 390 to 12 200 depending on the substance
give the reference associated and justify
this choice.
NF3 17 200
7. Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Climate Change 2007: Working Group
I: The Physical Science Basis, 2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials 33
- 4.5. Avoided emissions Calculation -
Avoided emissions are expected either from

energy or from material recovery.
Since they are outside the control
of the Waste Sector, it is highly difficult
to verify that they really occur. It depends emission factors adapted to local context. Avoided emissions can be quantified for the
on the behaviour of the consumers and also Avoided emissions associated with energy energy sent to sources of consumption 1 and
on the aftereffect of the introduction to production are only quantified for 2. However, auto consumption dedicated to
the market of these energy and materials the energy effectively sold to the grid energy generation (sources of consumption
from waste. In fact, avoided emissions and used onsite for purposes other than 3) cannot be taken into account for avoided
are therefore expected avoided emissions. that energy production, as can be seen emissions quantification since, in the
on the diagram below: absence of the project, there would not be
-> Energy recovery energy consumption.
Energy recovery consists in electric
and thermal energy production Site Perimeter
from waste thermal treatment, landfill
gas and biogas resulting from anaerobic Perimeter of electricity
digestion. production installation
Avoided emissions correspond to the GHG Electricity

emissions that would have occurred generation Electricity export
to produce an equivalent quantity of energy on site 1.
to what is dispatched to the grid / customer.
They are calculated based on the carbon On site consumption
weight of the energy substituted. Consumption for
2.
It is considered that the electricity, steam or electricity generation
heat dispatched to the grid / network would 3.
have been produced by the grid-connected
power sources, which constitute the national
energy mix. Energy from waste treatment
facilities is generated on a continuous basis Figure 1 -> Consumption sources of energy
and avoided emissions are calculated with produced by waste treatement activities
34
-> Material recovery

Material recovery consists in recycling For substitute fuels, avoided emissions The users will have to choose between
and reprocessing of waste fractions correspond to the difference between GHG these six databases according to their
in substitution to an equivalent quantity emissions associated with the combustion geographical context.
of materials which would have been of the waste-origin alternative fuel If the users want to use values other
produced out of raw virgin materials. and GHG emissions that would have occurred than those cited in the “Recycling
The most common fractions are: during the combustion of the substituted factors” sheet, they should document
- Paper/Cardboard conventional fossil combustible (taking into them and give the references of the LCA
- Glass account the same energy content). study at the origin of the values used.
- Steel
- Aluminium Several studies exist and provide factors
- Plastics for the avoided emissions related to
- Bottom ashes the recovery of different fractions (plastics, As mentioned in section 2.2,
- Scrap metal paper, metal…). In the Excel tool associated
- Substitute fuels (either Solid Recovered with this Protocol, we decided to provide waste treatment players cannot
Fuels from non-hazardous waste or emission factors resulting from six major claim ownership upon avoided
alternative fuels from hazardous waste) studies: emissions.
- Slag • Waste management options and climate
change, AEA Technology, study These emissions are reported
Avoided emissions associated with material for the DG Environnement, 2001 for information purposes
recovery are calculated using a Life Cycle • Solid Waste Management and only and therefore,
Analysis (LCA) approach. Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle
The studies compare the global emissions Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, cannot be deducted from direct
generated to produce a given material using 3rd edition, US EPA, 2006 or indirect emissions.
virgin raw materials / primary materials and • Etude technico-économique sur le bilan
the global emissions generated to collect, des filières de recyclage, ADEME/
treat, re-process and manufacture recyclable Ecobilan, 2007
materials into secondary materials • Resource savings and CO2 reduction It has to be noticed that, in its Corporate
with approximately the same quality potential in waste management Accounting and Reporting Standard,
and properties as the original material. in Europe and the possible contribution the GHG Protocol only requires that avoided
The emission factors for avoided emissions to the CO2 reduction target in 2020. emissions be reported separately from
result in the difference between the global Prognos. October 2008 the scopes. Otherwise, it does not currently
emissions of these two approaches. • CO2 kentallen afvalscheiding. JHB provide any specific guidance on quantifying
Benner et al. CE Delft, September 2007 and reporting avoided emissions.
• Report on the Environmental Benefits
of Recycling -Bureau of International
Recycling (BIR), October 2008.
35
- 4.6. Specific case

of landfill diffuse emissions modelling -
Accounting for methane captured in landfills Today, because of the very nature of the modelling
can be done using flowmeters placed exercise, no model is recommended over another,
on the landfill gas collection system and
composition analysis. as long as it uses first order equations.
However, field conditions make diffuse
emissions accounting difficult.
-> A diversity of existing models -> The importance of input data

To date, the most common approach has It is advised to resort to the model Good use of a landfill’s emissions estimation
been to use landfill gas production models accepted by local authorities for regulatory model requires a real competence
to estimate the diffuse emission. declarations. If there is no locally accepted (essentially because of the great sensitivity
The use of models is required to estimate model, the entity should use a model to the input data). The accuracy of the results
diffuse emissions in this Protocol. that is published, accepted and available also highly depends on the knowledge of
Annex 1 presents a comparative study of in scientific and technical literature the landfill to be modelled (biogenic carbon
the existing models. (the calculation tool associated with content, waste age, landfill gas capture rate),
this Protocol lists the preferred models), as much as on cultural criteria (food, waste
Among the diversity of existing models, and the parameters of the model should sorting practices).
only the models using first order equations be adapted to reflect site specific It is important that the site operational staff
can take into account the various factors conditions. The choice of the model as well work in close collaboration with the user
affecting landfill gas production today. as the parameter adaptation should of the model.
The entity should therefore use these be documented and justified. The entity should provide pertinent data for
models, and ban the use of models using “0” The chosen model will have to consider input parameters and perform a consistency
order equations (or using standard emission the waste composition. check on the calculated data, even by
factors). The various existing models were conducting a calculation using data provided
created to describe specific conditions Because of the necessary adaptation of by the Operation Managers. The use of these
and provide standard factors for waste that the model’s parameters, the reporting entity models implies a high level of uncertainty
can be adapted. Each of them have their pros should make sure that the same model that is difficult to assess.
and cons and the corresponding numerical is used every year, except if it justifies
results can vary widely. Each model requires the use of another model that allows better
time to understand its specificity representation of the landfill conditions.
and functionality.
36
- 4.7. Other specific cases -
-> Electricity transport and distribution -> Sequestrated carbon

Related GHG emissions are reported Since the accounting of sequestrated carbon A value set between 95% and 100%
by the electricity producer (scope 1). in GHG inventory is complex, the Annex 2 is estimated to correspond to most situations
The electricity consumer reports GHG of this Protocol is dedicated to this subject. for properly operated flares. As for any value
emissions corresponding to the electricity The user is called to refer to this Annex in the Protocol, the user is encouraged
quantity displayed on the electricity meter for more information. It has to be noticed to properly document and justify the figures
(scope 2). that the sequestrated carbon, if accounted, chosen.
must be reported as a memo item,
Remark: Concern is often expressed for information only, and separately
that accounting for indirect emissions from direct (scope 1) et indirect (scope 2)
will lead to double counting when two emissions, as well as from biogenic CO2
different reporting entities include the same emissions and avoided emissions.
emissions in their respective inventories.
Double counting should be avoided. -> Biogas combustion in flare
Entities must therefore clearly identify direct When the specifications of the manufacturer
and indirect emissions in their reporting. are met, the efficiency of the flare is close
to 100%. Yet, it may not always be 100%
and drop by a few %. A generic approach was
undertaken to show that these emissions are
not significant between 99% and 100%.
To best reflect each specific situation faced,
no default value is given in the Protocol
or in the excel tool. The value should
be determined by the user.
37
-> Biomass emissions calculation
The short cycle of carbon

The short cycle of carbon consists
in different stages; CO2 in the atmosphere
is captured by plants during photosynthesis
and turned into carbon, stored in plants
tissue. Biomass is considered to be a
“carbon pool” before it releases the carbon
back into the atmosphere when it is burnt or
decaying. This sequestered carbon remains
for a more or less long time in the pools,
influencing the total CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere.
It is considered that in a balance system,
the short carbon cycle is equal to zero
with equivalent amounts of CO2 captured
and released. Biologically sequestered
carbon can be released from these pools
when biomass is burnt or decaying.
Reporting of Biogenic CO2 emissions

International conventions8 agree that
carbon dioxide from biomass should
not be accounted for in waste management
section of National GHG inventories but
under the specific category of Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use.
Therefore, the Protocol provides a
methodology for quantifying and reporting
these biogenic emissions in a separate
memo item. This is in line with the GHG
Protocol requirements and with the IPCC
recommendations for National Inventories.
38 8. See for example: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 1 – "Introduction": "Carbon dioxide from the combustion or decay of short-lived
biogenic material removed from where it was grown is reported as zero in the Energy, IPPU and Waste Sectors (for example CO2 emissions from biofuels, and CO2 emissions
from biogenic material in Solid Waste Disposal Sites." Volume 5 - "Waste": "CO2 is also produced in SWDS, wastewater treatment and burning of non-fossil waste, but this CO2 is of
biogenic origin and is therefore not included as a reporting item in this sector"
Biogenic CO2 emissions from the waste sector are provided

for information only and should not be added or deducted
to direct or indirect emissions.
Emissions sources
The sources of biogenic CO2 emissions It has to be highlighted that relevant
identified for waste treatment activities emission factors and activity data
are the following: to calculate biogenic emissions are not
• Waste incineration of biodegradable always easily available, especially
fractions for biological treatment alternatives.
• Biomass energy (biofuels, bioliquids, These emissions depend of a number
solid biomass, biogases) combustion. of parameters and complex phenomena
• Diffuse CO2 emissions from landfill sites that make the elaboration of emission
• Oxidised fraction of diffuse methane factors uneasy. The Protocol proposes default
emissions from landfill sites accounting methods and emission factors
• Biogas combustion emissions in the calculation Excel tool. Other emission
• Anaerobic digestion direct CO2 factors and default values can be used
emissions through leakages but must be clearly documented
• Composting CO2 process emissions and justified.
• Refuse derived fuels incinerated
(share of biogenic carbon)
For each source, at least one quantification

approach is proposed in the Excel
calculation tool.
Default emission factors from the literature
and from other protocols are proposed.
39
- 4.8. Base Year

and Historic Emissions Recalculations -
-> Base Year -> Historic Emissions Recalculations

The base year is usually the first year Historic emissions are modified in
for which a GHG report is available. the following cases:
It is use as a reference year from which • Change in the sources types list
further annual GHG reports are compared (mergers, acquisitions, transfers,
to. In order to ensure coherency and outsourcing or insourcing of sources
comparison between different annual types),
reports, the boundary of the report should • Emissions quantification method change,
be consistent. Yet, as explained in section • Error detection in emissions quantification.
3.4, such boundary may evolve with time,
resulting from acquisition, outsourcing, etc. If the entity considers that it has
of some or all activities. If so, the historical a significant impact on the inventory,
emissions should be adjusted according to historic emissions have to be recalculated.
rules defined previously and based on the The process must be clearly documented
following requirements. and justified. Historic emissions are not
adjusted in case of an activity stopping
or starting. The entity must indicate if the
necessary historic data are not available.
It can then choose not to adjust the
concerned historic data.
For more information on historic Emissions

Recalculations, please refer to Chapter 5
of the Corporate Accounting and Reporting
Standard of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.
40
5
Managing Uncertainty
5.1 ......... Uncertainty in GHG emissions inventories -> page 42
5.2 ......... Uncertainty calculations -> page 44
5.3 ......... Reducing uncertainly -> page 46
41
- 5.1. Uncertainty in GHG emissions inventories -
Definition1: “A general and imprecise term which

refers to the lack of certainty in emissions related
data resulting from any causal factor,
such as the application of non-representative
factors or methods incomplete data on sources
and sinks, lack of transparency etc.
Reported uncertainty information typically
specifies a quantitative estimates of the likely
or perceived difference between a reported value
and a qualitative description of the likely
causes of the difference”.
42
By their nature, data inventory, evaluation Emissions totals reported by entities are
and collection lead to uncertainties. usually provided as a unique figure with
Assessing this uncertainty is essential in implicit or explicit confidence intervals.
GHG emissions reporting. It does not aim at For example, reported total emissions of
questioning the validity of inventory data 125,000 tons of CO2 equivalent could be more
but to determine the level of reliability. accurately phrased as “total emissions likely
It also helps identifying possible areas of to be between 115,000 and 135,000 tons”
improvement in reporting accuracy, and to or “total emissions are 125,000 tons plus
direct methodological choices. or minus 10%”. The degree of uncertainty
will vary widely for different emissions
estimates, depending upon the emissions
source type, the calculation method used
and the level of effort expended to gather
and validate data.
43
- 5.2. Uncertainty calculations -
-> Sources of uncertainty -> Uncertainty standard-values

Even when the best available calculation However, at this stage, it is difficult to The table below gathers uncertainty
methodologies are used, there are many perform a calculation whose result will ranges associated with instrumentation
sources of uncertainty for GHG emissions be relevant in the specific case of waste commonly used on waste management sites.
totals: management. In this sector, GHG emissions This table was built with data provided
• Estimation to compensate for missing monitoring shows a significant uncertainty, by experts from Veolia Environmental
data (e.g. non-reporting facilities, due to several factors: Services, Séché Environnement and Suez
or missing fuel bills), • An important number of waste treatment Environment. This table is indicative and
• Imprecise measurement of emissions- methods rely on complex processes should be used as default data only if more
producing activity, (notably biological) for which it is accurate information is not available from
• Calculation errors and omissions, difficult to reach the same level of manufacturers or sites.
• Use of “average case” emission factors accuracy as in other industrial sectors,
not perfectly matched to certain • Some emissions are diffuse and,
circumstances, therefore, are estimated using
• Assumptions that simplify theoretical mathematical models,
the estimation of emissions from highly • Treated waste shows very heterogeneous
complex processes, compositions, for which a statistical
• Use of approximative emission factors. approach is compulsory, introducing
important but unavoidable biases.
Standard factors, which precision
is unknown, can be used.
44
Table 3 -> Uncertainty ranges associated with instrumentation
Type of device/ Examples of use Uncertainty-type Observations

measure
Flow meter Flow measurement for used natural gas 2% Commercial measurement or integrated in a preventive maintenance
for incinerators approach.
Constructor’s value cannot be used, it is necessary to take into account
real use and maintenance conditions. It is recommended to archive
calibration certificates and monitoring and maintenance documents.
Captured landfill gas measurement 5 – 10% Non-commercial measurement and

instrumentation used for daily operational monitoring.
Corrective maintenance only.
Incinerators flue gas flow measurements 5 – 10% Difficult operating conditions (location of meter, variability of measured
flow); risks of equipment failure.
Weighbridge Determination of tonnage of waste 2% Commercial or integrated in a preventive maintenance programme.

collected, treated or recycled It is recommended to archive calibration certificates and maintenance
monitoring documents.
Tank levels Visual plotting of tank levels of additional 10% Uncertainty due to the imprecise methods to determine the fuel oil
liquid fuels or domestic oil tank levels.
Analyzers CO2 content determination of flue gas 5 – 10% Difficult operating conditions (localization); frequent failure risks.
using on site devices However, analyzers undergo strict regulatory monitoring.
Determination of the carbon content of fuel 5% Devices that require preventive maintenance and periodical calibration.
using laboratory analyzers It is recommended to archive maintenance monitoring documents.
(gas chromatography) It is necessary to have a sampling frequency that guarantees
the representativeness of the measured values and to document
the choice of the frequency.
Furthermore, it is noted that uncertainty principles cannot be applied to the The entity could refer to the Chapter 7 of the
principles apply to data from measures modelling that is performed to estimate Corporate Standard to make a calculation.
or analysis. This is the reason why these methane emissions from landfills.
45
- 5.3. Reducing uncertainty -
-> Recommendations -> Internal Controls

Uncertainty is inherent to the establishment • Implement a preventive maintenance The entity will have to implement
of a GHG emissions inventory. on measurement and analysis the necessary internal controls to reduce
However, the entity should aim at reducing instrumentation, supported by procedures significant error risks to an acceptable level.
this uncertainty and keeping residual and records to avoid potential deviation These controls will have to be documented
uncertainty as low as possible. of the instrumentation. and formalized.
To do so, the following principles should These documents should be kept It could be for example:
be implemented by the entity. and presented to the verifier, if necessary, • Consistency check on year to year
This entity will have to: • Implement internal controls that will reported data,
• Make sure it uses measurement be formalized and archived (see below) • Order of magnitude check on reported
and analysis instrumentation, as well as well as a management validation data,
as all means necessary for preparing process for the reporting entity, • Consistency check of calculated data
an inventory that are adapted and • Make sure GHG emissions quantification to activity data,
commonly used within the sector, process and used methods are constant, • Validation of the calculation by a third
and that the reporting is consistent over party within the entity.
the years.
46
6
Guidelines for GHG Reporting Presentation

6.1 ......... Content of the GHG inventory report -> page 48
6.2 ......... Use of radio indicators -> page 50
47
- 6.1 Content of the GHG inventory report -
-> 1. Description of the company

and inventory boundary
The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard 1.1. Outline of organizational boundaries

considers the following information chosen and the approach used
as the minimum content of a public GHG • See Section 3, Paragraph 3.1.
inventory:
1.2. Outline of the operational boundaries
chosen (in particular, the source type list
defined for year N, and changes made to the
source type list during year N) and, if Scope
3 emissions are included, a list specifying
which types of activities are covered;
• See Section 3, Paragraph 3.2.
1.3. Reporting period covered

• See Section 4, Paragraph 4.1.
48
-> 2. Information on emissions
2.1. Total Scope 1 & Scope 2 Emissions 2.5. Appropriate context for any significant The present Protocol adds the following
independent of biogenic CO2 emissions, emissions changes that trigger base year section which is not mentioned by the GHG
avoided emissions and sequestrated carbon emissions recalculations (acquisitions/ Protocol Corporate Standard:
• See Section 4 and use the calculation divestitures, outsourcing/insourcing,
Excel tool changes in reporting boundaries or 2.9. Total avoided emissions
calculation methodologies, etc.) • See Section 4, Paragraph 4.5
2.2. Emissions data separately for each scope • See Section 3.4
• See Section 4 and use the calculation Excel The public GHG emissions report may include,
tool 2.6. Emissions data for direct biogenic CO2 when applicable, the following additional
emissions, reported separately from the information:
2.3. Emissions data for all seven GHGs scopes • Emissions data from Scope 3 emissions
separately in metric tonnes • See Section 4.7 activities
• See Section 3, Paragraph 3.2 and use the • Information on the quality of the
calculation Excel tool 2.7. Methodologies used for calculations inventory (e.g. information, on the
• See Section 4, Paragraph 4.2. causes and magnitude of uncertainties
2.4. Year chosen as base year, and an in emission estimates) and an outline
emissions profile over time that is consistent 2.8. Any specific exclusions of sources, of policies in place to improve inventory
with and clarifies the chosen policy for facilities and/or operations quality - See Section 5
making base year emissions calculations • See Section 3, Paragraph 3.3 • Information on any GHG sequestration.
• See Section 4.8
The GHG emissions inventory report
is accompanied by a letter, signed by
management or a designated representative,
attesting that the data reported is a faithful
representation of the entity’s emissions, and
complies with the Protocol’s requirements.
49
- 6.2 Use of ratio indicators -
Ratio indicators may generally provide

information on the efficiency of an activity,
on the intensity of an impact or on
the progress on a specified objective.
Intensity ratios may be established and
provided. They are presented as relative
or specific emissions and express GHG impact
per unit of activity or unit of value.
Example: tonnes CO2 equivalent per tonne
of waste treated.
The present Protocol does not make any

recommendations concerning ratio indicators
definition and use. It is up to the user
to determinate if such data can be relevant
of its GHG emissions management.
50
7
Verification -> page 52
51
- Verification -
It is highly recommended that GHG annual

emissions inventory from the entities are
verified by a third party.
-> Scope -> Material discrepancy within annual

of the verification emissions
The purpose of the verification is to assess A verifier’s assessment of materiality will

that: include consideration of both the amount
• An internal protocol has been and nature the errors.
developed and complies with this For example, a relatively small omission
guidance; this protocol should include or error repeated frequently could,
calculation and computation methods once accumulated, have a material impact
and evidence of the sources on the total emissions figure.
of emissions factors used. A verifier will assess the materiality of any
When an entity uses an assessment individual misstatement as well as aggregate
method different from the Protocol, of uncorrected discrepancies.
it must describe its methodology
precisely and explain its choice. Therefore, verifiers will take into account
• Reported data are free from material any omission or error that could lead
discrepancies (validation of GHG to material discrepancies on annual figures.
emissions and associated uncertainty
for each source type).
52
- Annexes -
- of the Protocol -
53
54
- Annex 1
Comparative analysis
of the greenhouse gases models for landfills -
-> Overview of emission sources

Landfills are one of the main greenhouse gases Most controlled landfills are now equipped with The following scheme shows the different
emissions sources in the waste management recover y equipment for landfill gas produced emissions sources:
sector. Disposal of waste in landfills generates in cells. Their efficiency may var y, from 10% to
landfill gas, due to waste decay. This landfill gas more than 90% of recovered gas. These gases are
is mainly composed of CO 2 and CH 4 , as well as then flared or used to produce electricity and/
trace elements such as N 2 , O 2 , H 2 S, CO, NH 3 , H 2 , or heat. However, a part of the gases produced
VOC. Carbon dioxide comes from waste’s organic cannot be recovered. They may become fugitive
components aerobic decomposition, methane emissions, going into the atmosphere after
coming from anaerobic decomposition. p a s s i n g t h ro u g h t h e ce l l s cove r, u n d e rg o i n g
partial oxidation.
Figure 1 -> Overview of emissions sources of landfill

B
A D
A C
landfill gas oxidized within the cover layer
and diffused in the atmosphere – CO2 only
B
landfill gas diffusion in the atmosphere – CO2 and CH4
C
leak in the landfill gas collection system – CO2 and
CH4
D
landfill gas flared or recovered to produce energy
CO2 and potentially CH4 from incomplete combustion
55
-> Existing models
Model diversity
It is also necessary to keep in mind that Accounting for captured greenhouse gases Numerous models exist to assess pollutants
the lifetime of a landfill is made of several can be done using flowmeters installed in the emissions from landfills, whose goals and
phases, during which landfill gas formation landfill gas collection system and analysis complexity vary significantly. In this analysis,
and emissions conditions are different: of the gas composition. However, diffused we are interested in the models that allow an
emissions accounting shows a limit due to estimation of landfill gas production, so that
For instance : the difficulty, because of field conditions, we can assess greenhouse gas emissions.
1. Operating cell: aerobic conditions, no to assess the quantities of landfill gas
landfill gas recovering, emitted to the atmosphere. Diffuse emissions Models based on a theoretical production
2. “Completely filled” cell, not yet covered: measurements can indeed be done, but they calculation require knowledge of landfilled
aerobic and anaerobic conditions, important are complex and expensive to implement and tonnage. According to their accuracy, we
atmospheric diffusion, not optimum landfill are of limited accuracy. distinguish:
gas recovery,
3. Covered cell: aerobic and anaerobic To solve this difficulty, research has been • «0» order models (IPCC Tier 1 type):
conditions, optimum landfill gas recovery, done to model landfills atmospheric the methods used require emission
reduced diffusion. emissions. An inventory of these models and factors and take into account the tonnages
a comparative analysis of the main models landfilled on the year of the calculation.
The landfill gas quantity produced by a are presented below. It appears that landfill Resorting to standard values, they do
landfill and its composition (and therefore generated emissions modeling is a complex not take into account the complexity of
the quantity of greenhouse gases) depend on exercise that requires taking into account the landfill specific conditions and rather
several criteria. The main criteria are: numerous factors. aim at making estimated calculations,
typically at a regional or national level.
• Landfilled waste quantity, They do not allow reaching the accuracy
• Age of landfilled waste, that is necessary for the emissions
• Composition of landfilled waste1, calculation that has to be performed in
• Environmental physico-chemical conditions the present Protocol.
(humidity, temperature, pH, etc), • 1st order model (IPCC Tier 2 type):
• Efficiency of the landfill gas collecting These models take into account a landfill’s
system, waste filling history or yearly average
• Cover type. inputs and the site operating life (years).
56 1. This factor is highly variable from one region to another (food habits, waste sorting efficiency etc.).
It explains the significant discrepancies that one might observe between the models of the different countries.
E-PRTR Specific Context
They are based on first order kinetic The implementation of the European
equation, and are more or less complex, Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
depending on whether they take into (E-PRTR), replacing the European Polluant
account recovered landfill gas, methane Emission Register (EPER) since 2006,
oxidation through the cover, or other accelerated the development of national GHG
types of parameters. emissions estimation models for landfills.
The most sophisticated models (known According to the regulation 166/2006 of the
as multi-phase) distinguish several waste European Parliament and of the Council (also
types according to the speed at which they known as E-PRTR), the activities registered in
degrade. the Annex I of the IPPC (Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control) Directive and
The most frequently used models (older or exceeding the thresholds set in the Annex
more accomplished) in the literature are the I of the E-PRTR regulation must declare
IPCC Tier II model, Landgem (developed by their polluting emissions to competent
the US EPA), GasSim (developed by the British authorities. Landfills may fall under the 5.c
Administration) and the ADEME model in category «Installation for the disposal of
France. non hazardous waste (>50t/day)» or the 5.d
category «landfills (>10t/day).
As part of the E-PRTR reporting, Member
States have to collect data from sites that are
subject to declaration and transmit them to
the European Commission. Member States are
free to choose the model they use to assess
emissions. It should be noted that, according
to the E-PRTR, uncertainties remain in
assessing diffuse atmospheric emissions
from landfills in some countries.
57
Within the European Union, the models used by the member states are listed below (source: E-PRTR 2004):
Table 1 -> National models used for E-PRTR
Country Model used Short description
Germany National model Order 0 – adaptation of the tier 1 model from IPCC
+ some elements from tier 2 for CH4 emissions
Austria 2 (national) models depending if waste Order 1 – takes into account historical emissions
is residual (Tabasaran and Rettenberger Deduces captured landfill gas, cover oxidation – 2 waste types
methodology) or not (Marticorena (1-20 and 20-100 years half-life)
methodology)
Belgium National model Order 1, based on IPCC tier 2 – Deduces captured landfill gas, cover oxidation –
only 1 waste type
Denmark No data available No data available
Spain No data available No data available
Finland Adapted tier 2 IPCC model IPCC model: Order 1 with a change on methane corrective factor
France National models (ADEME) – one tier 2 type 1st model: order 1 – captured landfill gas, cover oxidation – 3 categories
model and another one based on captured of waste and 4 categories of waste age
landfill gas 2nd model: order 0 – uses the collecting device efficiency and the quantity
of captured landfill gas
Greece Tier 1 IPCC model Order 0
58
Table 1 (continued)
Country Model used Short description
Ireland LandGem (USEPA) Order 1 – only 1 waste category, takes into account cover oxidation and captured
landfill gas – Formerly created to model landfill gas production and not diffuse
emissions
Italy Taken from IPCC tier 2 Model Order 1
Luxembourg No data available No data available
Netherlands 2 national models (TNO) The 2 models are order 1 models – Takes into account captured landfill gas, cover
oxidation. The difference between the 2 models is made on the number of waste
category: 1 or 3.
These TNO models are used by government to provide NOR reporting, but landfill
operators are using a variety of models, developed by various consultants.
Portugal LandGem (USEPA) See Ireland
United Kingdom National model Order 1 – takes into account cover oxidation and deduces recovering from cover
(GasSim) characteristics – 3 waste categories
Sweden No data available No data available
59
Outside the E-PRTR scope and outside the

model developed by US EPA (see below),
Norway also developed a national First
Order Decay model, that takes into account
the various types of stored wastes.
-> Comparison of main models Modeling methodology
The comparison presented below concerns All the studied models are based on a first- This formula is the models’ core equation.
models that are the most usually referred order kinetic equation of the following type: The number of years “x” when waste
to, and that are sometimes used outside was landfilled is summed.
their source country: QCH4 = L0 . M . k. e -k(t-x) L0 and M depend on “x”.
Where : The result is sometimes detailed
• ADEME model QCH4: Quantity of methane produced per year by waste categories, the L0, M and k values
(France, national E-PRTR model), (Nm3/year) depend on the waste categories.
• GasSim (UK, national EPER model), L0: methane generation potential (Nm3 CH4 / t Depending on the models, other parameters
• LandGem (USA, EPA model), of waste) can also be taken into account, such
• IPCC Tier 2 model M: tonnes of landfilled waste (t) as landfill gas capture, oxidation through
(international reference). k: kinetic constant (year-1) the cover, physico-chemical factors, etc.
x: year when waste has been landfilled
t: year of emissions inventory (t ≥ x) The following table summarizes the main
technical characteristics and default data
of the various models (source: Ogor and
Guerbois 2005).
In most models, the factors mentioned here
(L0, k, etc.) can be modified by the user to be
more representative of the modeled landfills’
actual conditions.
60
Table 2 -> Model's characteristics description
IPCC Tier 2 LandGem (EPA) (8) GasSim ADEME
Model type Monophase (1) Monophase (1) Multiphase (6) Multiphase (6)
Input data Historic of landfilled waste Historic of landfilled waste Historic of landfilled waste Historic of landfilled waste
tonnages + % of inert waste tonnages + % of inert waste tonnages + waste composition tonnages + waste composition
Methane generation potential 110 (does not take into account 170 (does not take into account Automatically calculated (2)
L0 inert waste) (5) inert waste) Fast: 88
Medium: 44
Slow: 0
Kinetic Determined by the user 0,05 Fast: 0.016 Fast: 0.50

constant k Medium: 0.076 Medium: 0.10
Slow: 0.046 Slow: 0.04
Biogas capture efficiency Calculated (ratio capture / Calculated (ratio capture / Calculated (ratio capture / Capture
theoretical production) theoretical production)– maxi- theoretical production) efficiency average based on
mum at 85% cover type in proportion to the
surface areas (3)
Inputs due to capture Average flow of methane Average flow of methane Average flow of methane (4)
captured during the year captured during the year captured during the year surface area
every cover
type
Oxidation (7) 10% 10% Automatically calculated 10%
61
(1) The terms multiphase or monophase refer (2) Takes into account the fact that the ADEME (3) Used capture efficiencies are
to the fact that the model takes into account considers that during the first year, methane the followings: no capture (0%), operated area
one or several types of waste. For LandGem, production is nil (aerobic conditions) – connected to a combustion unit (35%), semi-
its use in multiphase has been mentioned initial factors are respectively 100, 50 and 0. permeable cover (65%), natural impermeable
during the interviews with the companies’ cover (85%) and geomembrane (90%).
experts.
(4) A second approach has been developed (5) The Tier 2 methodology does not set any (6) 3 waste categories: highly degradable,
by the ADEME. It uses the same capture rates value for the methane generation potential moderately degradable, and inert. For highly
as in the theoretical models, but is applied but indicates a calculation method according and moderately degradable waste, 3 kinetic
to the measured production. to the quality of the landfilled waste. constants are considered (fast, medium,
The value reported in the table above slow), respectively associated to 15, 55
and used in the VEOLIA PROPRETÉ internal and 30% of waste.
study was calculated under the hypothesis
of a composition of 25% of putrescible waste
and 30% of papers & textiles, but has
to be adapted for every site.
(7) The oxidation rate applies only (8) AP42 parameters.

to the uncaptured methane. These are the parameters used for regulatory
reporting in the USA, with CAA parameters.
62
Ease of use Consistency of results
All models show some complexity and Studies were done to compare the different The comparison between the estimated
require time to have a thorough knowledge models, and also to compare them with results of diffuse methane emissions and
so that they can be used in the best typical landfills. The results of these studies their in-situ measurements is much more
conditions, and be an accurate image of vary significantly and show the extreme random, and tendencies are not easily found.
a landfill characteristics. The ADEME and complexity of modelling (the results are very
GasSim models are considered to be more sensitive to factors’ variation, notably k and • According to the type of measure done,
complex than the others, since the EPA and Lo). The difficulty to measure diffuse methane the results on the quantity of methane
Tier2 models only allow to consider one type should be pointed out; the different methods diffused in the atmosphere range from 1
of waste . The calculation codes underlying used in the comparative studies can show to 10 (even if it is possible to explain part
the models are not complex2. It has to be highly significant deviations. of these gaps),
noted that the equations used by GasSim • For the models that substract
are integrated in the calculation software To solve this methodological difficulty, the measured quantity of captured
and are therefore, unlike in the other tools, the best way we can use to assess models’ methane from the estimated production,
inacessible by the users. performances lies in the comparison of the result is sometimes negative, therefore
In all cases, it came out of the discussions the estimations made for each model of inconsistent. The ADEME model eliminated
that the initial parameters of a model are the total methane production within the this problem through its unique approach
not relevant to reflect the specific situation cells as compared to the captured methane (capture rate estimation) and the EPA
of each site. It is therefore essential to quantity. This comparison inevitably induces model defines a capture rate threshold
know how to modify the model’s key factors a bias due to uncaptured landfill gas but, at 85%.
(especially waste composition and kinetic in the case of high capture output, it allows • In cases where results are not negative,
constant) to adapt them to site specific validation of the order of magnitude of the it is not possible to identify tendencies:
conditions. This work has to be part of a long models’ results. the results of these models vary
term approach, which makes constancy a significantly, whether we compare
primary target in the model choice. Such a study shows that: the results of the different models or
the models with field measurements.
Furthermore, it is sure that all available • When tests are done on several landfills, • The uncertainty for measured emissions
measured data (captured gas measurement net tendencies appear: some models is much higher than for theoretical
that has to be completed by diffuse gas (EPA, Tier 2) systematically predict higher production.
measures) constitutes a reliability and productions than others (GasSim, Ademe).
refinement source for the parameter setting The estimations vary almost from simple
of the used model. to double, regardless of the landfill,
• However, the total production estimations
made by the models are sometimes below
the captured gas quantity (and therefore
below the quantity of landfill gas actually
produced).
2. Remark: the term "complex" refers here to the model’s conception and use (necessary input date,
implemented calculation types, etc.). The complexity of model and of the implemented calculation 63
methods is not necessarily linked to the final results accuracy.
-> Conclusions
General Conclusion
The outcome of this study is that, because of They each have their pros and cons model can give a better representation
its very nature and unless costly emissions and can show wide variations in their of the landfills’ situation.
monitoring devices are set up, the best numerical results. Today, because
means for diffuse emissions estimates are of the very nature of the modeling Validity of the models
the use of emission models. exercise, no model is recommended over
Modelling is a difficult exercise, because another. Nonetheless, it is advised • In the present state of our knowledge,
of the diversity of physical, chemical and to resort to the model accepted by local it is impossible to validate the models’
mainly biological factors that governs the authorities for regulatory declarations. results on the quantity of diffuse methane.
waste degradation process. However, several If there is no locally accepted model, It is also in vain to suggest an estimation
models exist, that try to simulate the actual the entity should use a model that is of the uncertainty of these results,
landfill conditions. published, accepted and available • Total methane production assessments
in scientific and technical literature, seem consistent, when we compare
As a consequence, and the parameters of the model should the different models and as compared
be adapted to reflect the site’s specific to captured landfill gas measurements.
• The use of models is essential to assess situation. The choice of the model as well An uncertainty of +/- 50% is conceivable
diffuse emissions as the parameter adaptation should be on these results,
• Among the diversity of existing models, documented and justified. • The determination of a ranking based
only the order 1 models can today take • Because of the necessary adaptation of on model’s performance seems unrealistic,
into account the various factors that have the model’s parameters, the reporting for two main reasons:
an impact on landfill gas production. entity will have to make sure the same - The uncertainties due to the entire
It is therefore advised to favor these model is used every year, unless another modelling exercise are too important,
models and to avoid using order 0 models - There is a great sensitivity of the results
(or models using standard emission to input factors (notably k and L0),
factors). so that the results obtained for one single
• It is necessary to keep in mind that model can have a wide range of variations.
the use of these tools implies a very high Furthermore, a model that has used only
level of uncertainty, a level difficult default values does not seem pertinent;
to assess. This level of uncertainty cannot it has to be considered as a gross tool
be compared to the one that can that needs to be refined to reflect the local
be reached in GhG emissions calculation situation,
in other industrial facilities. • On the long term, methane production
• The different existing models were created potential is a crucial parameter since it
to reflect certain condition and include will influence directly the total cumulated
standard factors that can be adapted. methane production from a landfill.
64
It is therefore important to make sure that hypothesis with precision. recommended that the sites’ operational
these parameters’ values are consistent • It is also recommended that the user staff work in close collaboration with
from one model to another, converts the landfill gas production the reporting entities’ management.
• Methane oxidation through the cover results in Nm3 so that a consistent base The entity should provide pertinent
has been set at 10% in almost all models, of comparison with other sites is available. indicative elements on input parameters
according to the IPCC recommendations. and perform a consistency check on
However it is difficult to validate this Recommendations for use the calculated data, even make
the calculation using data given by
• Multiphase models are more accurate the operators on site.
in biochemical mechanisms’ modelling • The “management” of a model’s constants
and should allow sites to gain a more according to the measured results
accurate image of their emissions, (captured and diffuse landfill gas) appears
• The ADEME model (in both versions) shows to be an important source of progress
the non-negligible interest of suggesting in making the models more accurate.
an estimation of the diffuse landfill gas But this work needs to be done with
quantity in all cases, unlike the other extreme care:
models. This model was drawn up to show
the 30-year evolution of a landfill. - So that the output of the capture system
• The measurement of the captured landfill is not overestimated, inducing a reduction
gas remains by far the most accurate data. of the diffuse emissions (this would lead
It can therefore be interesting to use it. to bring the total methane production
However there is no method today in line with the captured methane
to assess the efficiency of the collection quantity),
system (or the cover efficiency), - Technically, diffuse methane
• Good use of a landfill’s emissions measurements are uncertain and need
estimation model requires a real to be done in good conditions to make sure
competence (essentially because of the results are representative.
the great sensitivity of input data). - It is also recommended to update
The accuracy of the results also highly the parameters every year so that
depends on the knowledge of the landfill the waste characteristics’ variations are
to be modelled (biogenic carbon rate, considered.
waste age, collection system efficiency),
as well as cultural criteria (food, habit
of waste sorting). This is why it is
65
-> References
Interviews with experts of ADEME, CITEPA,

European Topic Center for Resources and
Waste Management, VEOLIA PROPRETÉ, SITA
and SECHE ENVIRONNEMENT.
ADEME: Calculation tool of emissions to air and Projections of Greenhouse Gas Emissions UK Environment Agency: GasSIM – landfill gas
of CH4, CO2, SOx, NOx from waste storage sites from Waste’ (2005) risk assessment tool (2002)
and comparable – user manual (2003)
GIEC: Tier 2 method, Revised 1996 IPCC USEPA: LandGEM User’s Manual Landfill Gas
COWI: A Study on the Economic Valuation Guidelines for National Emission Greenhouse Emissions Model - Version 2.0 (1998)
of Environmental Externalities from Gas Inventories – Manuel de reference
Landfill Disposal and Incineration of Waste, Workshop on Inventories and Projections
Final Appendix Report for the European JACOBS J., SCHARFF H.: Comparison of of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste –
Commission (2000) methane emission models and methane Organized by the European Environment Agency
emission measurements (2004) – Copenhagen (Denmark), 2 – 3 may 2005
EPER: Supporting Document for the http://air-climate.eionet.eu.int/docs/
determination of diffuse methane emissions OGOR Y., GUERBOIS M.: “Comparison of meetings/050502_GhGEm_Waste_WS/
from landfill sites (2004) Landfill Methane Emission Models: a Case meeting050502.html
Study”, Proceedings Sardinia 2005, Tenth
European Environment Agency: Waste International Waste Management and Landfill
Management in Europe and the Landfill Symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari,
Directive – Background paper from the ETC/ Italy, 3-7 October 2005
RWM to the ETC/ACC workshop ‘Inventories
66
- Annex 2:
Carbon Sequestration in Landfills and Soils
after compost spreading -
-> Background on carbon sequestration
Definitions Carbon sequestration in waste management
Carbon is considered as stored when it is What exactly is the role of the waste sector
removed from the global carbon cycle over in carbon sequestration? Two activities
long time periods. are concerned: landfilling and compost
spreading. Both contribute to carbon
Carbon is present under gaseous form in sequestration: more precisely, they prolong
the atmosphere, especially in the form the phenomena of sequestration over time
of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon (cf. Figure 1) and, in this sense, play the role
dioxide). Carbon storage, whether natural of carbon sinks.
(photosynthesis, ocean absorption) or
artificial (manufactured products of biogenic
origin), helps to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Therefore, it participates positively in
climate change mitigation.
67
Figure 1 -> Evolution of stored organic carbon versus time
Extraction of Manufacture End-of-Life

Raw material and Use Phases
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2 CO2
et/ou
C C C
CH4
Sequestration of carbon in raw Sequestration of carbon Decrease of the quantity Residual stored carbon over long
material (photosynthesis) in manufactured products of stored carbon during waste time periods
of organic origin treatment
Carbon stored (landfilling or composting)
Time
Organic wastes and compost contain organic part of its carbon thus remains in soils. prevents some cellulose and hemicellulose
matter whose carbon has been sequestrated biodegradation.
during the production of the raw material In landfills, wood and paper decay very
(via photosynthesis) and the product slowly and accumulate in the landfills (long- In the same way, after compost spreading,
manufacturing (wooden board production for term storage). Carbon fractions in other part of the carbon present in compost is not
instance). During landfilling or composting, waste types decay over varying time periods. mineralized but retained in the soil. Indeed,
the organic matter contained in such Lignin does not decompose to a significant the stable organic matter has a turnover of
products decomposes and part of its carbon extent because of the anaerobic conditions. 100 to 1 000 years and thus a fraction of the
is emitted as CO2 and/or CH4, back to the Cellulose and hemicellulose decompose, carbon is bound in soil for long periods.
atmosphere. but the extent of their decomposition
depends on the environmental conditions In both cases, the result is that a fraction of
However, part of the organic matter does not in the landfill (e.g. pH and moisture). In biogenic carbon contained in organic waste/
decompose completely or very slowly and addition, the presence of lignin actually compost remains stored in soils.
68
-> Biogenic carbon versus fossil carbon
Carbon sequestration only concerns biogenic

carbon.
There are two distinct organic carbon cycles: it is then emitted as CO2 again, when • Fossil carbon is involved in the long-term
the short-term cycle (biogenic carbon) plants decompose. Assuming a sustainable organic carbon cycle. Instead of decaying,
and the long-term cycle (fossil carbon). biosphere, while plants are decomposing, part of the organic matter is being buried
others are growing and CO2 emitted by and incorporated into fossil fuels deposits
• Biogenic carbon is involved in the short- the previous is thus absorbed by the latter. or sediments. This process is very slow
term organic carbon cycle which reflects A neutral equilibrium of carbon is resulting. since it extends over geological timescales
carbon interactions between the atmosphere (thousands and millions of years).
and the biosphere. Carbon, as CO2, is first The residence time of carbon in geological
absorbed during the green plants growth reservoirs is estimated at more than 200
(photosynthesis). Temporarily sequestrated, millions years.
Figure 2 -> Biogenic Carbon Cycle versus Fossil Carbon Cycle
Biogenic carbon cycle Fossil carbon cycle
Atmosphere Atmosphere
Sequestration
Biosphere Techno-sphere Landfilling/ Biosphere Techno-sphere Landfilling

Compost spreading
Sequestration Sequestration
Soil Soil
Figure 2 describes the impact of landfilling landfilling and compost spreading avoid landfilling has no impact. It does not avoid
and compost spreading in both biogenic and carbon emissions, by extending carbon any carbon emission since fossil carbon,
fossil carbon cycles. It shows that: sequestration in the soils; initially extracted from soil, simply returns
• In the case of biogenic carbon, • Whereas in the case of fossil carbon, to the soil.
69
-> Estimating carbon sequestration
From a mass balance standpoint, carbon -> Estimating carbon sequestration

sequestration can be considered as a in landfills
negative emission.
Three positions are presented here: Avoided emissions from carbon
By convention, only the biogenic carbon that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate sequestration can then be calculated by
is stored for longer than the time horizon Change (IPCC) position, the United States multiplying
adopted for global warming (100 years) can Environmental Protection Agency position DOCm long-term stored T by 44/12.
be considered as having been sequestrated. (USEPA) and the Solid Waste Industry for
Climate Solutions (SWICS) position. To ensure consistency between the amount
Avoided emissions are calculated by of sequestrated carbon calculated and the
converting tons of sequestrated carbon to IPCC 2006 amount of emitted methane reported, the
avoided tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, As proposed in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines use of Equation 1 imposes the use of the IPCC
by multiplying by the molecular weight ratio for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Waste model to estimate methane emissions.
for carbon dioxide to carbon (44/12). Landfill C sequestration is estimated and
reported as an information item within the USEPA 2006
Waste Sector Inventory, but is accounted for In its study entitled “Solid Waste Management
in the Agriculture, Forestry and other Land and Greenhouse Gases, A Life Cycle
Use Inventory. The Waste Sector guidelines Assessment of Emissions and Sinks” (2006),
explain how to estimate the amount of USEPA estimates carbon sequestration
biogenic carbon that is long-term stored in that will result from landfilling organic
landfills. waste, based on experiments conducted by
Dr. Morton Barlaz of North Carolina State
University in 1998. Carbon storage factors
DOCm long-term stored T = (CSF) presented in this study should be
WT x DOC x (1 – DOCf) x MCF (Equation 1) updated (CSF of leaves and MSW) because they
have been slightly modified in 2008 by Dr M.
WT: mass of waste disposed in year T (Gg) Barlaz after errors were found in its original
DOC: degradable organic carbon in disposal calculation (See Table 1).
year (Gg C/Gg waste)
DOCf: fraction of DOC than can decompose
in the anaerobic conditions in the landfill
(fraction)
MCF: CH4 correction factor for year
of disposal (fraction)
70
Table 1 –> Carbon storage factors (CSF) from SWICS’s study
SWICS 2009 Amount of Carbon Stored Avoided CO2 emissions

SWICS has developed its approach to carbon TeqC/Wet Ton TeqCO2/Wet Ton
sequestration in its study entitled “Current
MSW Industry Position and State-of-the- Paper and Paperboard
Practice on LFG Collection Efficiency, Methane
Old Corrugated Containers 0,24 0,89
Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in
Landfills” (Version 2.2, Revised January, Old Newsprint 0,40 1,46
2009). Here as well, the approach proposed is
based on the research work performed by Dr. Office Paper 0,04 0,16
Morton Barlaz and the USEPA. SWICS proposes
Coated Paper, Magazines and 3rd Class Mail 0,25 0,93
the following carbon storage values for
refuse placed in landfills, taking into account Food
the update performed by Dr. Morton Barlaz
in 2008: Food 0,02 0,08
Yard Trimming
Grass 0,08 0,28
Leaves 0,28 1,01
Branches & wood 0,34 1,25
Municipal Solid Waste
15% moisture 0,10 0,36
20% moisture 0,10 0,36
25% moisture 0,09 0,32
71
PROGNOS 2008
PROGNOS proposes emission factors for the carbon sink equals 300 kgCO2 equivalent
landfilling of residual waste both with and per tonne of landfilled waste.
without the accounting of the carbon sink.
In its calculations, PROGNOS considered that
Table 2 -> Carbon storage factors from RECORD’s report
Amount of Carbon Stored Avoided CO2 emissions Source

TeqC/Wet Ton TeqCO2/Wet Ton
Paper
Newspaper 0,391 1,43 USEPA 2006
Office Paper 0,046 0,17 USEPA 2006
Magazines 0,245 0,90 USEPA 2006
Mixed paper 0,200 0,73 USEPA 2006
Paper 0,147 0,54 ERM 2006
Paper/Newspaper 0,214 0,78 AEA 2001
Newspaper/Magazines 0 0,00 Fridriksson 2002
Other papers 0 0,00 Fridriksson 2002
Newspaper 0,229 0,84 Finnveden 2000
Paper 0,235 0,86 Lobo et al. 2006
Value selected by RECORD 0,198 0,73
72
RECORD 2008 bodies and researchers can engage in management activities” in which a literature
In 2008, RECORD, - a French network open collaborative research projects -, has review of carbon storage factors is made.
to all public or privately owned published a study entitled “Application The results of this work are presented in
organizations in which industry, public of the Bilan Carbone method to waste the Table below.
Table 2 (continued)
Amount of Carbon Stored Avoided CO2 emissions Source

TeqC/Wet Ton TeqCO2/Wet Ton
Cardboard
Corrugated cardboard 0,245 0,90 USEPA 2006
Corrugated cardboard 0,207 0,76 Finnveden 2000
Mixed cardboard 0,161 0,59 Finnveden 2000
Mixed paper 0,234 0,86 Lobo et al. 2006
Food Discards
Food Discards 0,024 0,09 USEPA 2006
Food Discards 0,064 0,23 ERM 2006
Food Discards 0,038 0,14 AEA 2001
Food Discards and garden waste 0 0 Fridriksson 2002
Food Discards 0,06 0,22 Finnveden 2000
Food Discards 0,069 0,25 Lobo et al. 2006
MSW
73
-> Estimating carbon sequestration in soils

after compost spreading
Three positions are presented here.
USEPA 2006 Table 3 -> Carbon storage factors Boldrin A. et al 2009

In its study entitled “Solid Waste Management from USEPA's report A. Boldrin et al of Departement of
and Greenhouse Gases, A Life Cycle Environmental Engineering of the Technical
Assessment of Emissions and Sinks” (2006), Amount of Carbon Stored
University of Denmark and E. Favoino of
USEPA explains that its research efforts TeqCO2/Wet Ton Suola Agraria del Parco di Monza have both
did not yield any primary data that could published an article entitled “Compost
be used to develop quantitative estimates Food Discards 0,26 and compost utilization: accounting
of the soil carbon sequestration benefits of greenhouse gases and global warming
of compost. Therefore, it decided to use a Yard Trimming 0,26 contributions” in Waste management
simulation model able to be applied to the & research (Volume 27, Issue 8 , November
Mixed organics 0,26
issue of soil carbon sequestration from 2009).
compost application. CENTURY is a Fortran They purpose the following formula
model of plant-soil ecosystems that simulates AEA Technology 2001 to calculate the avoided CO2 emissions due
long-term dynamics of carbon, nitrogen, AEA Technology details the phenomena to carbon sequestration:
phosphorus, and sulfur. It tracks the of carbon sequestration in soils in case
movement of carbon through soil pools and of compost application and purposes a CO2,bind = Cinput x Cbind x 44/12
can show changes in carbon levels due to the quantification in its study entitled “Waste
addition of compost. In addition to this soil Management options and climate change” CO2,bind: sink of CO2 (kg)
carbon restoration effect, USEPA considers (2001). According to this study, 8,2% of the Cinput: C content in compost (kg)
the impact of compost on humus formation. carbon contained in compost would remain Cbind: fraction of C which is stable
Indeed, USEPA reports that some studies sequestrated after 100 years.
considering other compost feedstocks (e.g. According to different studies, the article
farmyard manure, legumes) have indicated PROGNOS 2008 reminds that the C still bound to soil after
that the addition of organic matter to PROGNOS proposes emission factors for 100 years has been estimated to be 2-14% of
soil plots may increase the potential for compost production from biowaste and the input in compost, depending on the soil
sequestration of soil organic carbon. application both with and without the type and the crop rotation.
accounting of the carbon sink. In its
USEPA proposes the following carbon storage calculations, PROGNOS considered a storage
factor for compost application. This factor rate of carbon of 24%, corresponding to 52
takes into account carbon sequestration kgCO2 equivalent per tonne of collected and
from both the soil restoration and the humus composted biowaste.
formation.
74
Table 4 -> Carbon storage factors from Boldrin A. and Favoino E.’s article
Carbon content Carbon bound in soil Avoided CO2 emissions

(kg/Wet ton) (kg/Wet Ton) TeqCO2/Wet Ton
Compost from food waste 63-386 1-54 4-198
Compost from garden waste 56-202 1-28 4-103
->Waste Sector Protocol position regarding

the incorporation of carbon sequestration
in the Protocol
Carbon sequestration in landfills and soils Besides, it is important to adopt a position calculating this sequestration such as
has been and continues to be a subject that would be coherent with the approach the IPCC model). Under no circumstances,
of debate which requires further research. considered for methane emissions from this sequestrated carbon should be
landfills. In the Protocol, the emissions subtracted from the direct emissions
In an annual reporting approach, such as occurring in year N (reporting year) due or presented as avoided emissions in
the one described by the Waste Sector to the waste disposed up to and including the reporting entities’ inventory.
Protocol, taking into account carbon year N are taken into account; the Protocol As such, this sequestrated carbon can only
sequestration is a challenging task because does not consider the emissions that will be reported for information purposes.
of the confrontation of two time horizons. occur on year N and afterwards originating
On the one hand, carbon sequestration from the waste disposed during the
is most often based on a 100 year time reporting year.
horizon whereas on the other hand,
the time period for reporting is typically one In the case of carbon sequestration in
year. However, this carbon, that will only be landfills and soils through carbon spreading,
considered as sequestrated if stored the Protocol’s position is to display the
for more than 100 years after its disposal carbon stored under the heading “carbon
in the soil, is effectively present in the soil sequestration” if adequate information is
right from the first year. available (for example if the reporting entity
has made use of a first order decay model
75
- Annex 3:
Composting – N2O, CH4 and biogenic CO2 Emissions Factors - 1.
-> Homogenized emission factors for direct N2O emissions
Source Emission factor % of initial N Methodology Substrate

gN2O/t WW 2
ADEME 05 24 [2.4 – 59.1] Review of bibliography Biowaste

Default [min – max]
210 [10.5 – 262] MSW
Bar02 158 Biowaste
Bec01 7.15 0.02 Measurements in reactors Greenwaste
149.5 0.4
210.6 0.6
CITEPA13 221 Mixed waste
Cl03 15 On-site measurements MSW
400
ERM06 165 Paper, cardboard, park waste
He98 232 0.5 On-site measurements Greenwaste
1247.52 0.4 Measurements in reactors
382 0.7
Heres07 69 [40 – 100] Default [min – max] Vegetable, fruit and garden
waste (VFG)
IPCC06b 300 [60 – 600] Default [min – max]
Recommended values
76 1. Factors found in littérature, compiled thanks to a BIO Intelligence Service study carried out in 2007
2. WW = Wet Weight
-> Homogenized emission factors for direct CH4 emissions
Source Emission factor Methodology Substrate

gCH4/t WW
ADEME 05 1240 [310 – 6190] Review of bibliography MSW (65% dry)

Default [min – max]
CITEPA13 1094 Mixed waste
Cl03 400 On-site measurements MSW
1200
10000
ERM06 30.3 Paper, cardboard, park waste
He98 6760 On-site measurements Greenwaste
Heres07 170 [80 – 300] Default [min – max] Vegetable, fruit and garden
waste (VFG)
IPCC06b 4000 [30 – 8000] Default [min – max]
FNADE09 90 On-site measurements Residual MSW
130 Greenwaste
220 Wastewater Treatment sludge
5111 Organic fraction of MSW
Recommended values
77
-> Homogenized emission factors for biogenic CO2 emissions
Source Emission factor Methodology Substrate

kgCO2/t WW
FNADE09 78400 On-site measurements Residual MSW
30900 Greenwaste
128600 WWT sludge
247000 Organic fraction of MSW
Remark: EF for direct CH4 emissions should be in coherence with EF for composting biogenic CO2 in order
to respect to total carbon balance.
-> Legend of above mentioned bibliographical

sources:
ADEME05: ADEME (2005), Impacts CITEPA13: CITEPA (2013), Organisation et Heres07: Research determining indicator
environnementaux de la Gestion Biologique méthodes des inventaires nationaux des for methane and laughing gas composting
des Déchets. émissions atmosphériques en France plants. (Onderzoek bepalen kentallen
(OMINEA), 10e Edition. methaan en lachgas composteerbedrijven),
Bar02: Barton, P. K. and Atwater, J. W. R-J Heres, Tauw BV, Deventer, 22 November
(2002), Nitrous Oxide Emissions and the Cl03: Clemens J., C. Cuhls, (2003). Greenhouse 2007 (in Dutch).
Anthropogenic Nitrogen in Wastewater gas emissions from mechanical and
and Solid Waste Journal of Environmental biological waste treatment of municipal waste. IPCC06b: IPCC (2006), Guidelines for National
Engineering 128(2):137-150. Environmental Technology, 24(6):745-754. Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Chapter 4:
Biological treatment of solid waste
Bec01: Beck-Friis B., S. Smars, H. Jonsson, ERM06: Fisher, K., Aumonier, S. (2006) Impact
H. Kirchmann, (2001). Gaseous emissions of Energy from Waste and Recycling Policy on FNADE09: Guide d’aide à la déclaration
of carbon dioxide, ammonia and nitrous UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, ERM for DEFRA. annuelle des émissions polluantes et des
oxide from organic household waste in a déchets des installations de compostage,
compost reactor under different temperature He98: Hellebrand H.J., 1998. Emission FNADE, validation ADEME, February 2009
regimes. Journal of Agricultural Engineering of nitrous oxide and other trace gases
Research, 78(4):423-430. during composting of grass and green
waste. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 69(4):365-375.
78
79

Waste Sector GHG Protocol - Version 5 - October 2013 - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waste Sector GHG Protocol - Version 5 - October 2013 - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Waste Sector GHG Protocol - Version 5 - October 2013 - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

- Protocol -

- for the quantification -

- Acknowledgments and Contact -

This Protocol was developed by the Entreprises pour l’Environnement

Seche Environnement Suez Environnement Veolia Environnement

Acknowledgments and Contact -> 02

Unfortunately, the current global overview is much less optimistic.

Despite the uncertainty of the on-going international climate

Protocol’s Objectives and Principles

This Protocol is a dynamic document:

In line with the GHG Protocol Corporate

Waste Management Sector

- 2.1. Waste Management Activities -

-> Collection and transportation

-> Mechanical pre-treatment

-> Sorting, recycling and material recovery

- 2.2. Specificities of Waste Sector’s

The primary objective of the waste sector is to collect,

-> Emissions monitoring and uncertainties -> Avoided emissions

-> Biogenic CO2 emissions

- 3.1. Organizational boundaries -

Definition: 2 In setting organizational boundaries,

-> “Equity share” and “control” approaches

20 2. Source: Chapter 3 of the GhG Protocol’s Corporate Standard

The “operational control” approach thus appears

-> Specific cases: delegation, sub-contracting

- 3.2. Operational boundaries -

-> Gases covered and units -> Scopes covered

22 4. Source: Chapter 4 of the GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard

Definition: A source type is a process or equipment

Activity Direct Emissions Indirect Avoided Emissions Sources Biogenic CO2

Activity Direct Emissions Indirect Avoided Emissions Sources Biogenic CO2

Under the definition of the completeness principle

Nevertheless, based on experience of this Protocol to assess whether or not some

- 4.1. Reporting Period and data -

The Excel calculation tool indicates

- 4.2. Methodologies used -

- 4.3. Calculation Tool -

-> This tool is made of several • Landfills: • Recycling Factors:

- 4.4. Global Warming Potentials -

Table 2 -> Global Warming Potentials used in this Protocol

The Global Warming Potentials (GWP) used Gas GWP

It was chosen to move to the most recent

- 4.5. Avoided emissions Calculation -

Avoided emissions are expected either from

Avoided emissions correspond to the GHG Electricity

-> Material recovery

- 4.6. Specific case

-> A diversity of existing models -> The importance of input data

- 4.7. Other specific cases -

-> Electricity transport and distribution -> Sequestrated carbon

-> Biomass emissions calculation

The short cycle of carbon

Reporting of Biogenic CO2 emissions

Biogenic CO2 emissions from the waste sector are provided

For each source, at least one quantification

- 4.8. Base Year

-> Base Year -> Historic Emissions Recalculations

For more information on historic Emissions